🏭🗒️Microsoft Fabric: The Metrics Layer [Notes] [new feature]

Disclaimer: This is work in progress intended to consolidate information from various sources for learning purposes. For the latest information please consult the documentation (see the links below)! 

Last updated: 07-May-2024

The Metrics Layer in Microsoft Fabric (adapted diagram)

[new feature] Metrics Layer (Metrics Store)

• {definition}an abstraction layer available between the data store(s) and end users which allows organizations to create standardized business metrics, that are rooted in measures and are discoverable and intended for reuse
• ⇐ {important} feature still in private preview 
• {goal} extend existing infrastructure 
• {benefit} leverages and extends existing features
• {goal} provide consistent definitions and descriptions [1]
• consistent definitions that include besides business logic additional dimensions and filters [1]
• ⇒ {benefit} allows to standardize the metrics across the organization
• ⇒ {benefit} enforce to enforce a SSoT
• {goal} easy management 
• via management views 
• [feature] lineage 
• [feature] source control
• [feature] duplicate identification
• [feature] push updates to downstream uses of the metrics 
• {goal}searchable and discoverable metrics 
• {feature} integration
• based on Sempy fabric package
• ⇐ a dataframe for storage and propagation of Power BI metadata which is part of the python-based semantic Link in Fabric
• {goal}trust
• [feature] trust indicators
• {benefit} facilitates report's adoption
• {feature} metric set 
• {definition} a Fabric item that groups together a set of metrics into a mini-model
• {benefit} allows to reduce the overall complexity of semantic models, while being easy to evolve and consume
• associated with a single domain
• ⇒ supports the data mesh architecture
• shareable 
• can be shared with other users
• {action} create metric set
• creates the actual artifact, to which metrics can be added 
• {feature} metric
•  {definition} a way to elevate the measures from the various semantic models existing in the organization
• tied to the original semantic model
• ⇒ {benefit} allows to see how a metric is used across the solutions 
• reusable
• can be reused in other fabric artifacts
• new reports on the Power BI service
• notebooks 
• by copying the code
• can be reused in Power BI
• via OneLake data hub menu element
• can be chained 
• changes are propagated downstream 
• materializable 
• its output can be persisted to OneLake by saving it a delta table into a lakehouse
• {misuse} data is persisted unnecessarily
• {action} elevate metric
• copies measure's definition and description
• ⇒  implies restructuring, refactoring, moving, and testing a lot of code in the process
• {misuse} data professionals build everything as metrics
• {action} update metric
• {action} add filters to metric 
• {action} add dimensions to metric
• {action} materialize metric 

Previous Post <<||>>  Next Post

Acronyms:
SSoT - single source of truth ()

References:
[1] Power BI Tips (2024) Explicit Measures Ep. 236: Metrics Hub, Hot New Feature with Carly Newsome (link)
[2] Power BI Tips (2024) Introducing Fabric Metrics Layer / Power Metrics Hub [with Carly Newsome] (link)

🧭🏭Business Intelligence: Microsoft Fabric (Part III: The Metrics Layer [new feature])

Introduction

One of the announcements of this year's Microsoft Fabric Community first conference was the introduction of a metrics layer in Fabric which "allows organizations to create standardized business metrics, that are rooted in measures and are discoverable and intended for reuse" [1]. As it seems, the information content provided at the conference was kept to a minimum given that the feature is still in private preview, though several webcasts start to catch up on the topic (see [2], [4]). Moreover, as part of their show, the Explicit Measures (@PowerBITips) hosts had Carly Newsome as invitee, the manager of the project, who unveiled more details about the project and the feature, details which became the main source for the information below. 

The idea of a metric layer or metric store is not new, data professionals occasionally refer to their structure(s) of metrics as such. The terms gained weight in their modern conception relatively recently in 2021-2022 (see [5], [6], [7], [8], [10]). Within the modern data stack, a metrics layer or metric store is an abstraction layer available between the data store(s) and end users. It allows to centrally define, store, and manage business metrics. Thus, it allows us to standardize and enforce a single source of truth (SSoT), respectively solve several issues existing in the data stacks. As Benn Stancil earlier remarked, the metrics layer is one of the missing pieces from the modern data stack (see [10]).

Microsoft's Solution

Microsoft's business case for metrics layer's implementation is based on three main ideas (1) duplicate measures contribute to poor data quality, (2) complex data models hinder self-service, (3) reduce data silos in Power BI. In Microsoft's conception the metric layer provides several benefits: consistent definitions and descriptions, easy management via management views, searchable and discoverable metrics, respectively assure trust through indicators. 

For this feature's implementation Microsoft introduces a new Fabric Item called a metric set that allows to group several (business) metrics together as part of a mini-model that can be tailored to the needs of a subset of end-users and accessed by them via the standard tools already available. The metric set becomes thus a mini-model. Such mini-models allow to break down and reduce the overall complexity of semantic models, while being easy to evolve and consume. The challenge will become then on how to break down existing and future semantic models into nonoverlapping mini-models, creating in extremis a partition (see the Lego metaphor for data products). The idea of mini-models is not new, [12] advocating the idea of using a Master Model, a technique for creating derivative tabular models based on a single tabular solution.

A (business) metric is a way to elevate the measures from the various semantic models existing in the organization within the mini-model defined by the metric set. A metric can be reused in other fabric artifacts - currently in new reports on the Power BI service, respectively in notebooks by copying the code. Reusing metrics in other measures can mean that one can chain metrics and the changes made will be further propagated downstream. 

The Metrics Layer in Microsoft Fabric (adapted diagram)

Every metric is tied to the original semantic model which allows thus to track how a metric is used across the solutions and, looking forward to Purview, to identify data's lineage. A measure is related to a "table", the source from which the measure came from.

Users' Perspective

The Metrics Layer feature is available in Microsoft Fabric service for Power BI within the Metrics menu element next to Scorecards. One starts by creating a metric set in an existing workspace, an operation which creates the actual artifact, to which the individual metrics are added. To create a metric, a user with build permissions can navigate through the semantic models across different workspaces he/she has access to, pick a measure from one of them and elevate it to a metric, copying in the process its measure's definition and description. In this way the metric will always point back to the measure from the semantic model, while the metrics thus created are considered as a related collection and can be shared around accordingly. 

Once a metric is added to the metric set, one can add in edit mode dimensions to it (e.g. Date, Category, Product Id, etc.). One can then further explore a metric's output and add filters (e.g. concentrate on only one product or category) point from which one can slice-and-dice the data as needed.

There is a panel where one can see where the metric has been used (e.g. in reports, scorecards, and other integrations), when was last time refreshed, respectively how many times was used. Thus, one has the most important information in one place, which is great for developers as well as for the users. Probably, other metadata will be added, such as whether an increase in the metric would be favorable or unfavorable (like in Tableau Pulse, see [13]) or maybe levels of criticality, an unit of measure, or maybe its type - simple metric, performance indicator (PI), result indicator (RI), KPI, KRI etc.

Metrics can be persisted to the OneLake by saving their output to a delta table into the lakehouse. As demonstrated in the presentation(s), with just a copy-paste and a small piece of code one can materialize the data into a lakehouse delta table, from where the data can be reused as needed. Hopefully, the process will be further automated. 

One can consume metrics and metrics sets also in Power BI Desktop, where a new menu element called Metric sets was added under the OneLake data hub, which can be used to connect to a metric set from a Semantic model and select the metrics needed for the project. 

Tapping into the available Power BI solutions is done via an integration feature based on Sempy fabric package, a dataframe for storage and propagation of Power BI metadata which is part of the python-based semantic Link in Fabric [11].

Further Thoughts

When dealing with a new feature, a natural idea comes to mind: what challenges does the feature involve, respectively how can it be misused? Given that the metrics layer can be built within a workspace and that it can tap into the existing measures, this means that one can built on the existing infrastructure. However, this can imply restructuring, refactoring, moving, and testing a lot of code in the process, hopefully with minimal implications for the solutions already available. Whether the process is as simple as imagined is another story. As misusage, in extremis, data professionals might start building everything as metrics, though the danger might come when the data is persisted unnecessarily. 

From a data mesh's perspective, a metric set is associated with a domain, though there will be metrics and data common to multiple domains. Moreover, a mini-model has the potential of becoming a data product. Distributing the logic across multiple workspaces and domains can add further challenges, especially in what concerns the synchronization and implemented of requirements in a way that doesn't lead to bottlenecks. But this is a general challenge for the development team(s). 

The feature will probably suffer further changes until is released in public review (probably by September or the end of the year). I subscribe to other data professionals' opinion that the feature was for long needed and that can have an important impact on the solutions built. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Resources:
[1] Microsoft Fabric Blog (2024) Announcements from the Microsoft Fabric Community Conference (link)
[2] Power BI Tips (2024) Explicit Measures Ep. 236: Metrics Hub, Hot New Feature with Carly Newsome (link)
[3] Power BI Tips (2024) Introducing Fabric Metrics Layer / Power Metrics Hub [with Carly Newsome] (link)
[4] KratosBI (2024) Fabric Fridays: Metrics Layer Conspiracy Theories #40 (link)
[5] Chris Webb's BI Blog (2022) Is Power BI A Semantic Layer? (link)
[6] The Data Stack Show (2022) TDSS 95: How the Metrics Layer Bridges the Gap Between Data & Business with Nick Handel of Transform (link)
[7] Sundeep Teki (2022) The Metric Layer & how it fits into the Modern Data Stack (link)
[8] Nick Handel (2021) A brief history of the metrics store (link)
[9] Aurimas (2022) The Jungle of Metrics Layers and its Invisible Elephant (link)
[10] Benn Stancil (2021) The missing piece of the modern data stack (link)
[11] Microsoft Learn (2024) Sempy fabric Package (link)
[12] Michael Kovalsky (2019) Master Model: Creating Derivative Tabular Models (link)
[13] Christina Obry (2023) The Power of a Metrics Layer - and How Your Organization Can Benefit From It (link) 
[14] KratosBI (2024) Introducing the Metrics Layer in #MicrosoftFabric with Carly Newsome [link]

🏭Data Warehousing: Microsoft Fabric (Part II: Data(base) Mirroring) [New feature]

Data Warehousing Series

Microsoft recently announced [4] the preview of a new Fabric feature called Mirroring, a low-cost, low-latency fully managed service that allows to replicate data from various systems together into OneLake [1]. Currently only Azure SQL Database, Azure Cosmos DB, and Snowflake are supported, though probably more database vendors will be targeted soon. 

For Microsoft Fabric's data engineers, data scientists and data warehouse professionals this feature is huge as importance because they don't need to care anymore about making the data available in Microsoft Fabric, which involves a considerable amount of work. 

Usually, at least for flexibility, transparence, performance and standardization, data professionals prefer to extract the data 1:1 from the source systems into a landing zone in the data warehouse or data/delta lake from where the data are further processed as needed. One data pipeline is thus built for every table in scope, which sometimes is a 10–15-minute effort per table, when the process is standardized, though upon case the effort is much higher if troubleshooting (e.g. data type incompatibility or support) or further logic changes are involved. Maintaining such data pipelines can prove to be costly over time, especially when periodic changes are needed. 

Microsoft lists other downsides of the ETL approach - restricted access to data changes, friction between people, processes, and technology, respectively the effort needed to create the pipelines, and the time needed for importing the data [1]. There's some truth is each of these points, though everything is relative. For big tables, however, refreshing all the data overnight can prove to be time-consuming and costly, especially when the data don't lie within the same region, respectively data center. Unless the data can be refreshed incrementally, the night runs can extend into the day, will all the implications that derive from this - not having actual data, which decreases the trust in reports, etc. There are tricks to speed up the process, though there are limits to what can be done. 

With mirroring, the replication of data between data sources and the analytics platform is handled in the background, after an initial replication, the changes in the source systems being reflected with a near real-time latency into OneLake, which is amazing! This allows building near real-time reporting solutions which can help the business in many ways - reviewing (and correcting in the data source) records en masse, faster overview of what's happening in the organizations, faster basis for decision-making, etc. Moreover, the mechanism is fully managed by Microsoft, which is thus responsible for making sure that the data are correctly synchronized. Only from this perspective 10-20% from the effort of building an analytics solution is probably reduced.

Mirroring in Microsoft Fabric (adapted after [2])

According to the documentation, one can replicate a whole database or choose individual regular tables (currently views aren't supported [3]), stop, restart, or remove a table from a mirroring. Moreover, through sharing, users can grant to other users or groups of users access to a mirrored database without giving access to the workspace and the rest of its items [1]. 

The data professionals and citizens can write then cross-database queries against the mirrored databases, warehouses, and the SQL analytics endpoints of lakehouses, combining data from all these sources into a single T-SQL query, which opens lot of opportunities especially in what concerns the creation of an enterprise semantic model, which should be differentiated from the semantic model created by default by the mirroring together with the SQL analytics endpoint.

Considering that the data is replicated into delta tables, one can take advantage of all the capabilities available with such tables - data versioning, time travel, interoperability and/or performance, respectively direct consumption in Power BI.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] Microsoft Learn - Microsoft Fabric (2024) What is Mirroring in Fabric? (link)
[2] Microsoft Learn - Microsoft Fabric (2024) Mirroring Azure SQL Database [Preview] (link)
[3] Microsoft Learn - Microsoft Fabric (2024) Frequently asked questions for Mirroring Azure SQL Database in Microsoft Fabric [Preview] (link)
[4] Microsoft Fabric Updates Blog (2024) Announcing the Public Preview of Mirroring in Microsoft Fabric, by Charles Webb (link)

🧭Business Intelligence: Monolithic vs. Distributed Architecture (Part III: Architectural Applications)

 

Business Intelligence Series

Now considering the 500 houses and the skyscraper model introduced in thee previous post, which do you think will be built first? A skyscraper takes 2-10 years to build, depending on the city in which is built and the architecture characteristics. A house may take 6-12 months depending on similar factors. But one needs to build 500 houses. For sure the process can be optimized when the houses look the same, though there are many constraints one needs to consider - the number of workers, tools, and the construction material available at a given time, the volume of planning, etc. 

Within a rough estimate, it can take 2-5 years for each architecture to be built considering that on the average the advantages and disadvantages from the various areas can balance each other out. Historical data are in general needed for estimating the actual development time. One can start with a rough estimate and reevaluate the estimates up and down as more information are gathered. This usually happens in Software Engineering as well. 

Monolith vs. Distributed Architecture - 500 families

There are multiple ways in which the work can be assigned to the contractors. When the houses are split between domains, each domain can have its own contractor(s) or the contractors can be specialized by knowledge areas, or a combination of the two. Contractors’ performance should be the same, though in practice no two contractors are the same. Conversely, the chances are higher for some contractors to deliver at the expected quality. It would be useful to have worked before with the contractors and have a partnership that spans years back. There are risks on both sides, even if the risks might favor one architecture over the other, and this depends also on the quality of the contractors, designs, and planning. 

The planning must be good if not perfect to assure smooth development and each day can cost money when contractors are involved. The first planning must be done for the whole project and then split individually for each contractor and/or group of buildings. A back-and-forth check between the various plans is needed. Managing by exception can work, though it can also go terribly wrong. 

Lot of communication must occur between domains to make sure that everything fits together. Especially at the beginning, all the parties must plan together, must make sure that the rules of the games (best practices, policies, procedures, processes, methodologies) are agreed upon. Oversight (governance) needs to happen at a small scale as well on aggregate to makes sure that the rules of the game are followed. 

Now, which of the architectures do you think will fit a data warehouse (DWH)? Probably multiple voices will opt for the skyscraper, at least this is how a DWH looks from the outside. However, when one evaluates the architecture behind it, it can resemble a residential complex in which parts are bound together, but there are parts that can be distributed if needed. For example, in a DWH the HR department has its own area that's isolated from the other areas as it has higher security demands. There can be 2-3 other areas that don't share objects, and they can be distributed as well. The reasons why all infrastructure is on one machine are the costs associated with the licenses, respectively the reporting tools point to only one address. 

In data marts based DWHs, there are multiple buildings within the architecture, and thus the data marts can be distributed across a wider infrastructure, with each domain responsible for its own data mart(s). The data marts are by definition domain-dependent, and this is one of the downsides imputed to this architecture. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Monolithic vs. Distributed Architecture (Part II: Architectural Choices)

Business Intelligence Series

One metaphor that can be used to understand the difference between monolith and distributed architectures, respectively between data warehouses and data mesh-based architectures as per Dehghani’s definition [1] - think that you need to accommodate 500 families (the data products to be built). There are several options: (1) build a skyscraper (developing on vertical) (2) build a complex of high buildings and develop by horizontal and vertical but finding a balance between the two; (3) to split (aka distribute) the second option and create several buildings; (4) build for each family a house, creating a village or a neighborhood. 

Monolith vs. Distributed Architecture - 500 families

(1) and (2) fit the definition of monoliths, whiles (3) and (4) are distributed architectures, though also in (3) one of the buildings can resemble a monolith if one chooses different architectures and heights for the buildings. For houses one can use a single architecture, agree on a set of predefined architectures, or have an architecture for each house, so that houses would look alike only by chance. One can also opt to have the same architecture for the buildings belonging to the same neighborhood (domain or subdomain). Moreover, the development could be split between multiple contractors that adhere to the same standards.

If the land is expensive, for example in big, overpopulated cities, when the infrastructure and the terrain allow it, one can build entirely on vertical, a skyscraper. If the land is cheap one can build a house for each family. The other architectures can be considered for everything in between.

A skyscraper is easier for externals to find (mailmen, couriers, milkmen, and other service providers) though will need a doorman to interact with them and probably a few other resources. Everybody will have the same address except the apartment number. There must be many elevators and the infrastructure must allow the flux of utilities up and down the floors, which can be challenging to achieve.

Within a village every person who needs to deliver or pick up something needs to traverse parts of the village. There are many services that need to be provided for both scenarios though the difference it will be the time that's needed to move in between addresses. In the virtual world this shouldn't matter unless one needs to inspect each house to check and/or retrieve something. The network of streets and the flux of utilities must scale with the population from the area.

A skyscraper will need materials of high quality that resist the various forces that apply on the building even in the most extreme situations. Not the same can be said about a house, which in theory needs more materials though a less solid foundation and the construction specifications are more relaxed. Moreover, a house needs smaller tools and is easier to build, unless each house has own design.

A skyscraper can host the families only when the construction is finished, and the needed certificates were approved. The same can be said about houses but the effort and time is considerably smaller, though the utilities must be also available, and they can have their own timeline.

The model is far from perfect, though it allows us to reason how changing the architecture affects various aspects. It doesn't reflect the reality because there's a big difference between the physical and virtual world. E.g., parts of the monolith can be used productively much earlier (though the core functionality might become available later), one doesn't need construction material but needs tool, the infrastructure must be available first, etc. Conversely, functional prototypes must be available beforehand, the needed skillset and a set of assumptions and other requirements must be met, etc.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] Zhamak Dehghani (2021) Data Mesh: Delivering Data-Driven Value at Scale (book review)

🧭Business Intelligence: Architecture (Part I: Monolithic vs. Distributed and Zhamak Dehghani's Data Mesh - Debunked)

Business Intelligence Series

In [1] the author categorizes data warehouses (DWHs) and lakes as monolithic architectures, as opposed to data mesh's distributed architecture, which makes me circumspect about term's use. There are two general definitions of what monolithic means: (1) formed of a single large block (2) large, indivisible, and slow to change.

In software architecture one can differentiate between monolithic applications where the whole application is one block of code, multi-tier applications where the logic is split over several components with different functions that may reside on the same machine or are split non-redundantly between multiple machines, respectively distributed, where the application or its components run on multiple machines in parallel.

Distributed multi-tire applications are a natural evolution of the two types of applications, allowing to distribute redundantly components across multiple machines. Much later came the cloud where components are mostly entirely distributed within same or across distinct geo-locations, respectively cloud providers.

Data Warehouse vs. Data Lake vs. Lakehouse [2]

From licensing and maintenance convenience, a DWH resides typically on one powerful machine with many chores, though components can be moved to other machines and even distributed, the ETL functionality being probably the best candidate for this. In what concerns the overall schema there can be two or more data stores with different purposes (operational/transactional data stores, data marts), each of them with their own schema. Each such data store could be moved on its own machine though that's not feasible.

DWHs tend to be large because they need to accommodate a considerable number of tables where data is extracted, transformed, and maybe dumped for the various needs. With the proper design, also DWHs can be partitioned in domains (e.g. define one schema for each domain) and model domain-based perspectives, at least from a data consumer's perspective. The advantage a DWH offers is that one can create general dimensions and fact tables and build on top of them the domain-based perspectives, minimizing thus code's redundancy and reducing the costs.  

With this type of design, the DWH can be changed when needed, however there are several aspects to consider. First, it takes time until the development team can process the request, and this depends on the workload and priorities set. Secondly, implementing the changes should take a fair amount of time no matter of the overall architecture used, given that the transformations that need to be done on the data are largely the same. Therefore, one should not confuse the speed with which a team can start working on a change with the actual implementation of the change. Third, the possibility of reusing existing objects can speed up changes' implementation. 

Data lakes are distributed data repositories in which structured, unstructured and semi-structured data are dumped in raw form in standard file formats from the various sources and further prepared for consumption in other data files via data pipelines, notebooks and similar means. One can use the medallion architecture with a folder structure and adequate permissions for domains and build reports and other data artefacts on top. 

A data lake's value increases when is combined with the capabilities of a DWH (see dedicated SQL server pool) and/or analytics engine (see serverless SQL pool) that allow(s) building an enterprise semantic model on top of the data lake. The result is a data lakehouse that from data consumer's perspective and other aspects mentioned above is not much different than the DWH. The resulting architecture is distributed too. 

Especially in the context of cloud computing, referring to nowadays applications metaphorically (for advocative purposes) as monolithic or distributed is at most a matter of degree and not of distinction. Therefore, the reader should be careful!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] Zhamak Dehghani (2021) Data Mesh: Delivering Data-Driven Value at Scale (book review)
[2] Databricks (2022) Data Lakehouse (link)

🔖Book Review: Zhamak Dehghani's Data Mesh: Delivering Data-Driven Value at Scale (2021)

	Zhamak Dehghani's "Data Mesh: Delivering Data-Driven Value at Scale" (2021) is a must read book for the data professional. So, here I am, finally managing to read it and give it some thought, even if it will probably take more time and a few more reads for the ideas to grow. Working in the fields of Business Intelligence and Software Engineering for almost a quarter-century, I think I can understand the historical background and the direction of the ideas presented in the book. There are many good ideas but also formulations that make me circumspect about the applicability of some assumptions and requirements considered.  So, after data marts, warehouses, lakes and lakehouses, the data mesh paradigm seems to be the new shiny thing that will bring organizations beyond the inflection point with tipping potential from where organization's growth will have an exponential effect. At least this seems to be the first impression when reading the first chapters.
The book follows to some degree the advocative tone of promoting that "our shiny thing is much better than previous thing", or "how bad the previous architectures or paradigms were and how good the new ones are" (see [2]). Architectures and paradigms evolve with the available technologies and our perception of what is important for businesses. Old and new have their place in the order of things, and the old will continue to exist, at least until the new proves its feasibility.   The definition of the data mash as "a sociotechnical approach to share, access and manage analytical data in complex and large-scale environments - within or across organizations" [1] is too abstract even if it reflects at high level what the concept is about. Compared to other material I read on the topic, the book succeeds in explaining the related concepts as well the goals (called definitions) and benefits (called motivations) associated with the principles behind the data mesh, making the book approachable also by non-professionals.  Built around four principles "data as a product", "domain-oriented ownership", "self-serve data platform" and "federated governance", the data mesh is the paradigm on which data as products are developed; where the products are "the smallest unit of architecture that can be independently deployed and managed", providing by design the information necessary to be discovered, understood, debugged, and audited. It's possible to create Lego-like data products, data contracts and/or manifests that address product's usability characteristics, though unless the latter are generated automatically, put in the context of ERP and other complex systems, everything becomes quite an endeavor that requires time and adequate testing, increasing the overall timeframe until a data product becomes available.  The data mesh describes data products in terms of microservices that structure architectures in terms of a collection of services that are independently deployable and loosely coupled. Asking from data products to behave in this way is probably too hard a constraint, given the complexity and interdependency of the data models behind business processes and their needs. Does all the effort make sense? Is this the "agility" the data mesh solutions are looking for? Many pioneering organizations are still fighting with the concept of data mesh as it proves to be challenging to implement. At a high level everything makes sense, but the way data products are expected to function makes the concept challenging to implement to the full extent. Moreover, as occasionally implied, the data mesh is about scaling data analytics solutions with the size and complexity of organizations. The effort makes sense when the organizations have a certain size and the departments have a certain autonomy, therefore, it might not apply to small to medium businesses. Previous Post <<||>>  Next Post References: [1] Zhamak Dehghani (2021) "Data Mesh: Delivering Data-Driven Value at Scale" (link) [2] SQL-troubles (2024) Zhamak Dehghani's Data Mesh - Monolithic Warehouses and Lakes (link)

🧭Business Intelligence: A One-Man Show (Part I: Some Personal Background and a Big Thanks!)

Business Intelligence Series

Over the past 24 years, I found myself often in the position of a "one man show" doing almost everything in the data space from requirements gathering to development, testing, deployment, maintenance/support (including troubleshooting and optimization), and Project Management, respectively from operations to strategic management, when was the case. Of course, different tasks of varying complexity are involved! Developing a SSRS or Power BI report has a smaller complexity than developing in the process also all or parts of the Data Warehouse, or Lakehouse nowadays, respectively of building the whole infrastructure needed for reporting. All I can say is that "I've been there, I've done that!". 

Before SSRS became popular, I even built for a customer a whole reporting solution based on SQL Server, HTML & XML, respectively COM+ objects for database access. UI’s look-and-feel was like SSRS, though there was no wizardry involved besides the creative use of programming and optimization techniques. Once I wrote an SQL query, the volume of work needed to build a report was comparable to the one in SSRS. It was a great opportunity to use my skillset, working previously as a web developer and VB/VBA programmer. I worked for many years as a Software Engineer, applying the knowledge acquired in the field whenever it made sense to do so, working alone or in a team, as the projects required.

During this time, I was involved in other types of projects and activities that had less to do with the building of reports and warehouses. Besides of the development of various desktop, web, and data-processing solutions, I was also involved in 6-8 ERP implementations, being responsible for the migration of data, building the architectures needed in the process, supporting key users in various areas like Data Quality or Data Management. I also did Project Management, Application Management, Release and Change Management, and even IT Management. Thus, there were at times at least two components involved - one component was data-related, while the other component had more diversity. It was a good experience, because the second component often needed knowledge of the first, and vice versa. 

For example, arriving to understand the data model and business processes behind an ERP system by building ad-hoc and standardized reports, allowed me to get a good understanding of what data is needed for a Data Migration, which are the dependencies, or the level of quality needed. Similarly, the knowledge acquired by building ETL-based pipelines and data warehouses allowed me to design and build flexible Data Migration solutions, both architectures being quite similar from many perspectives. Knowledge of the data models and architectures involved can facilitate the overall process and is a premise for building reliable performant solutions. 

Similar examples can also be given in Data Management, Data Operations, Data Governance, during and post-implementation ERP support, etc. Reports and data are needed also in the Management areas - it starts from knowing what data are needed in the supporting processes for providing transparency, of getting insights and bringing the processes under control, if needed.

Working alone, being able to build a solution from the beginning to the end was often a job requirement. This doesn't imply that I was a "lone wolf". The nature of a data professional or software engineer’s job requires you to interact with various businesspeople from report requesters to key users, internal and external consultants, intermediary managers, and even upper management. There was also the knowledge of many data professionals involved indirectly – the resources I used to learn from - books, tutorials, blogs, webcasts, code, and training material. I'm thankful for their help over all these years!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧊Data Warehousing: Architecture V (Dynamics 365, the Data Lakehouse and the Medallion Architecture)

Data Warehousing Series

An IT architecture is built and functions under a set of constraints that derive from architecture’s components. Usually, if we want flexibility or to change something in one area, this might have an impact in another area. This rule applies to the usage of the medallion architecture as well! 

In Data Warehousing the medallion architecture considers a multilayered approach in building a single source of truth, each layer denoting the quality of data stored in the lakehouse [1]. For the moment are defined 3 layers - bronze for raw data, silver for validated data, and gold for enriched data. The concept seems sound considering that a Data Lake contains all types of raw data of different quality that needs to be validated and prepared for reporting or other purposes.

On the other side there are systems like Dynamics 365 that synchronize the data in near-real-time to the Data Lake through various mechanisms at table and/or data entity level (think of data entities as views on top of other tables or views). The databases behind are relational and in theory the data should be of proper quality as needed by business.

The greatest benefit of serverless SQL pool is that it can be used to build near-real-time data analytics solutions on top of the files existing in the Data Lake and the mechanism is quite simple. On top of such files are built external tables in serverless SQL pool, tables that reflect the data model from the source systems. The external tables can be called as any other tables from the various database objects (views, stored procedures and table-valued functions). Thus, can be built an enterprise data model with dimensions, fact-like and mart-like entities on top of the synchronized filed from the Data Lake. The Data Lakehouse (= Data Warehouse + Data Lake) thus created can be used for (enterprise) reporting and other purposes.

As long as there are no special requirements for data processing (e.g. flattening hierarchies, complex data processing, high-performance, data cleaning) this approach allows to report the data from the data sources in near-real time (10-30 minutes), which can prove to be useful for operational and tactical reporting. Tapping into this model via standard Power BI and paginated reports is quite easy. 

Now, if it's to use the data medallion approach and rely on pipelines to process the data, unless one is able to process the data in near-real-time or something compared with it, a considerable delay will be introduced, delay that can span from a couple of hours to one day. It's also true that having the data prepared as needed by the reports can increase the performance considerably as compared to processing the logic at runtime. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. 

Probably, the most important scenario that needs to be handled is that of integrating the data from different sources. If unique mappings between values exist, unique references are available in one system to the records from the other system, respectively when a unique logic can be identified, the data integration can be handled in serverless SQL pool.

Unfortunately, when compared to on-premise or Azure SQL functionality, the serverless SQL pool has important constraints - it's not possible to use scalar UDFs, tables, recursive CTEs, etc. So, one needs to work around these limitations and in some cases use the Spark pool or pipelines. So, at least for exceptions and maybe for strategic reporting a medallion architecture can make sense and be used in parallel. However, imposing it on all the data can reduce flexibility!

Bottom line: consider the architecture against your requirements!

Previous Post <<||>>> Next Post

[1] What is the medallion lakehouse architecture?
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/databricks/lakehouse/medallion

💫Data Warehousing and Dynamics 365 for Finance and Operation - A Few Issues to Consider I

Data Warehousing Series

Introduction

Besides the fact that data professionals don't have direct access to D365 F&O production environments (direct access is available only to sandboxes), which was from the beginning an important constraint imposed by the architecture, there are a few more challenges that need to be addressed when working with the data.

Case Sensitiveness

SQL Server is not case sensitive, therefore, depending on the channel though which the data came, values appear either in upper or lower case, respectively a mixture of both. Even if this isn't an issue in D365, it can become an issue when the data leave the environment. E.g., PowerQuery is case sensitive (while DAX is case insensitive), thus, if a field containing a mix of values participate in a join or aggregation, this will result in unexpected behavior (e.g., duplicates, records ignored). It's primarily the case of the Company (aka DataAreaId) field available in most of the important tables.

The ideal solution would be to make sure that the values are correct by design, however this can't be always enforced. Otherwise, when using the data outside of D365 F&O the solution would be to transform all the values in upper case (or lower case). However, also this step might occur too late. E.g., when the data are exported to the Azure Data Lake in parquet file format.

Unique Keys

A unique record in D365 F&O was in earlier versions usually identified by the RecId and DataAreaId, while later the Partition field was added. This means that most of the joins will need to consider all 3 columns, which adds some overhead. In some environments there's only a Partition defined (and thus the field can be ignored), however this is not a warranty. 

As long developers use SQL there's no issue of using multiple fields in JOINs, though in PowerQuery there must be created a unique key based on the respective records so the JOINs are possible. Actually, also SQL-based JOINs would benefit if each record would be identified by one field.

Audit Metadata

Not all tables have fields that designate the date when a record was created or last modified, respectively the user who performed the respective action. The fields can be added manually when setting up the system, however that's seldom done. This makes it difficult to audit the records and sometimes it's a challenge also for reporting, respectively for troubleshooting the differences between DWH and source system. Fortunately, the Export to Data Lake adds a timestamp reflecting the time when the record was synchronized, though it can be used then only for the records synchronized after the first load. 

Tables vs. Entities

Data are modified in D365 F&O via a collection of entities, which are nothing but views that encapsulate the business logic, being based on the base tables or other views, respectively a combination of both. The Export to Data Lake (*) is based on the tables, while Link to Data Lake is based on data entities. 

Using the base tables means that the developer must reengineer the logic from the views. For some cases it might work to create the entities as views in the DWH environment though some features might not be supported. It's the case of serverless and dedicated SQL pools, that support only a subset from the features available under standard Azure SQL Server. 

The developer can try to replicate the logic from entities, considering only the logic needed by the business, especially when only a subset from the functionality available in the entity was used. The newly created views can become thus more readable and maintainable. On the other side, if the logic in entity changed, the changes need to be reflected also in the DWH views. 

Using the entity-based data makes sure that the data are consistent between environments. Unfortunately, Microsoft found out that isn't so easy to synchronize the data at entity level. Moreover, there are multiple entities based on the same table that reflect only a subset of the columns or rows. Thus, to cover all the fields from a base table, one might be forced to synchronize multiple views, leading thus to data duplication.  

In theory, both mechanisms can be used within the same environment, even if this approach is against the unique source of truth principle, when data are duplicated. 

Data Validation in the Data Lake

One scenario in which both sources are useful is when validating whether the synchronization mechanism worked as expected. Thus, one can compare the number of records and check whether there are differences that can't be mitigated. However, does it make sense to "duplicate" database objects only for this purpose?

Ideally, to validate whether a record was synchronized should be done in the source environment (e.g. via a timestamp). That's difficult to achieve, especially when there's no direct access to the source database (as is the case for Production databases). Fortunately, Dataverse provides this functionality, even if might not be bullet proof. 

In extremis, the most reliable approach is to copy the production environment on a sandbox and do a count of records for each table, using as baseline for comparison the time when the refresh occurred.

Base Enum Values

The list of values that don't have their own tables are managed within the application as Base Enums and, naturally, only the numeric values being saved to the database. Even if this is practical for the application, it's a nightmare for the people using the data exported from database as is needed to convert the codes to meaningful values. Some of the mappings between the codes and values are documented in two system tables, and even in old language-based documentation, though both sources are far from complete. As alternative, one can try to discover the values in the system. 

Unfortunately, the mappings need to be repeated when the Enum-based attributed is used in multiple places. One can reduce mapping's duplication by encapsulating the logic into a view (aka "base view") and reused accordingly (see the logic for TDM.vEcoResProduct).

Even if the values for many of the Enums are stored into the EnumValueTable table, Enum's name being available in EnumIdTable table, it's not a good idea to retrieve the values via a JOIN in the business logic. This would complicate the business logic unnecessarily. A CASE is more efficient even if occasionally more difficult to maintain. Unfortunately, there's no timestamp to identify which values were added lately.

Note:
(*) Existing customers have until 1-Nov-2024 to transition from Export to Data lake to Synapse link. Microsoft advises new customers to use Synapse Link.

🧭Business Intelligence: New Technologies, Old Challenges (Part I: An Introduction)

Each important technology has the potential of creating divides between the specialists from a given field. This aspect is more suggestive in the data-driven fields like BI/Analytics or Data Warehousing. The data professionals (engineers, scientists, analysts, developers) skilled only in the new wave of technologies tend to disregard the role played by the former technologies and their role in the data landscape. The argumentation for such behavior is rooted in the belief that a new technology is better and can solve any problem better than previous technologies did. It’s a kind of mirage professionals and customers can easily fall under.

Being bigger, faster, having new functionality, doesn’t make a tool the best choice by default. The choice must be rooted in the problem to be solved and the set of requirements it comes with. Just because a vibratory rammer is a new technology, is faster and has more power in applying pressure, this doesn’t mean that it will replace a hammer. Where a certain type of power is needed the vibratory rammer might be the best tool, while for situations in which a minimum of power and probably more precision is needed, like driving in a nail, then an adequately sized hammer will prove to be a better choice.

A technology is to be used in certain (business/technological) contexts, and even if contexts often overlap, the further details (aka requirements) should lead to the proper use of tools. It’s in a professional’s duties to be able to differentiate between contexts, requirements and the capabilities of the tools appropriate for each context. In this resides partially a professional’s mastery over its field of work and of providing adequate solutions for customers’ needs. Especially in IT, it’s not enough to master the new tools but also have an understanding about preceding tools, usage contexts, capabilities and challenges.

From an historical perspective each tool appeared to fill a demand, and even if maybe it didn’t manage to fill it adequately, the experience obtained can prove to be valuable in one way or another. Otherwise, one risks reinventing the wheel, or more dangerously, repeating the failures of the past. Each new technology seems to provide a deja-vu from this perspective.

Moreover, a new technology provides new opportunities and requires maybe to change our way of thinking in respect to how the technology is used and the processes or techniques associated with it. Knowledge of the past technologies help identifying such opportunities easier. How a tool is used is also a matter of skills, while its appropriate use and adoption implies an inherent learning curve. Having previous experience with similar tools tends to reduce the learning curve considerably, though hands-on learning is still necessary, and appropriate learning materials or tutoring is upon case needed for a smoother transition.

In what concerns the implementation of mature technologies, most of the challenges were seldom the technologies themselves but of non-technical nature, ranging from the poor understanding/knowledge about the tools, their role and the implications they have for an organization, to an organization’s maturity in leading projects. Even the most-advanced technology can fail in the hands of non-experts. Experience can’t be judged based only on the years spent in the field or the number of projects one worked on, but on the understanding acquired about implementation and usage’s challenges. These latter aspects seem to be widely ignored, even if it can make the difference between success and failure in a technology’s implementation.

Ultimately, each technology is appropriate in certain contexts and a new technology doesn’t necessarily make another obsolete, at least not until the old contexts become obsolete.

Previous Post <<||>>Next Post

🧊Data Warehousing: ETL (Part V: The Transform Subprocess)

As part of the ETL process, the Transform subprocess is responsible for bridging the gap between source and destination by leveraging SQL or the rich set of (data) transformations available in ETL tools, either to enable the implicit or explicit conversion between source and destination data types, or to transform the data as needed. 

Transformations act on data as operators, the challenge being to transform the data in the smallest number of steps in the most efficient way. Some of the transformations available in the ETL tools (e.g. conversions, sorting, sampling, joins, lookups, aggregation, pivoting, unpivoting) can be replaced by SQL-based logic. One can easily prepare the data directly in the extraction query, taking thus advantage of the power provided by the database engines. Moreover, the logic can be encapsulated in views or other objects and called as required by the extraction logic when the source database allows it. This approach allows maintaining the logic independently of the ETL packages.

Unfortunately, SQL can replace the transformations that address sequential logic and not workflow-related logic (e.g. conditional splitd, merges, multicasts, slowly changing dimensions) or logic that includes certain computational complexity (e.g. fuzzy groupings or lookups). Such gaps need to be filled by the ETL tools via the built-in transformations, by allowing developers to build custom logic or simple use COTS solutions, when they prove capable of filling the gap. 

Copying the data 1:1 at table or entity-level from the source system(s) involves in theory the simplest transformations, transformations revolving mainly around conversions between data types. The casual troublemakers are the numeric and date values, which can be found in different formats or precisions in the various environments. As this can apply to the ETL environment itself, it’s important to consider environment-agnostic data types when possible (e.g. strings). 

Other sources for concerns are the user-defined data types which don’t have equivalents between the systems, needing thus additional transformations for further handing, respectively the invalid values which need to be handled accordingly. Besides the data from the source system(s) and the derived values, upon case one needs to consider the parameter-based or hardcoded metadata created in the process. 

Independently of the purpose of the ETL packages it is usually required to document the data flow associated with them and the rules applied in transformations in what is known as a mapping document. Such a document needs to be understandable by the business, as it can serve for Data Management, projects, or other purposes.  Even if it’s almost impossible to document everything, at minimum needs to be provided the source and destination tables, the attributes considered in the mappings, respectively the most important rules the business should be aware of. Otherwise, the technical people can always turn back to the SQL queries, when needed. 

Some sources consider each non-trivial transformation as a business rule. Even if the rules used in transformations constrain the (business) data, not each rule is relevant for the business to the degree that it constrains some part of the business.

Data Migrations involve transformations between (database) schemas. Therefore, the logic requested to move the data could be handled in theory with a few well-designed packages, though there are considerations like logic complexity, transparency, flexibility, performance or auditability which could be better handled by using other techniques (e.g. saving the data in intermediary tables, breaking down the logic in several steps). Such considerations can apply also to simple ETL packages. Therefore, it’s important to recognize such scenarios, weight the choices and choose what fits best. However, unless one knows what one’s doing, it’s recommended to use the methods one knows best. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧊Data Warehousing: ETL (Part IV: The Load Subprocess)

As part of the ETL process, the Load subprocess is responsible for loading the data into the destination table(s). It covers in theory the final steps from the data pipeline and in most of the cases it matches the definition of the query used for data extraction, though this depends also on the transformations used in the solution.

A commonly used approach is dumping the data into an intermediary table from the staging area, table with no constraints that matches only the data types from the source. Once the data loaded, they are further copied into the production table. This approach allows minimizing the unavailability of the production table as the load from an external data source normally takes longer than copying the data within the same database or instance. That might not be the case when the data are available in the same data center, however loading the data first in a staging table facilitates troubleshooting and testing. This approach allows also dropping the indexes on the production table before loading the data and recreating them afterwards. In practice, this proves to be an efficient method for improving data loads’ efficiency.

In general, it’s recommended to import the data 1:1 compared with the source query, though the transformations used can increase or decrease the number of attributes considered. The recommendation applies as well to the cases in which data come from different sources, primarily to separate the pipelines, as systems can have different refreshing requirements and other constraints.

One can consider adding a timestamp reflecting the refresh date and upon case also additional metadata (e.g. identifier for source system, unique identifier for the record). The timestamp is especially important when the data are imported incrementally - only the data created since the last load are loaded. Except the unique identifier, these metadata can however be saved also in a separate table, with the same granularity as the table (1:1) or one record for each load per table and system, storing a reference to the respective record into the load table. There are seldom logical argumentations for using the former approach, while the latter works well when the metadata are used only for auditing purposes. If the metadata are needed in further data processing and performance is important, then the metadata can be considered directly in the load table(s).

A special approach is considered by the Data Vault methodology for Data Warehousing which seems to gain increasing acceptance, especially to address the various compliance requirements for tracking the change in records at most granular level. To achieve this the fact and dimension tables are split into several tables – the hub tables store the business keys together with load metadata, the link tables store the relationships between business keys, while satellite tables store the descriptions of the business keys (the other attributes except the business key) and reference tables store the dropdown values. Besides table’s denormalization there are several other constraints that apply. The denormalization of the data over multiple tables can increase the overall complexity and come with performance penalties, as more tables need to be joined, however it might be the price to pay if traceability and auditability are a must.

There are scenarios in which the requirements for the ETL packages are driven by the target (load) tables – the format is already given - one needing thus to accommodate the data into the existing tables or extended the respective tables to accommodate more attributes. It’s the case for load tables storing data from multiple systems with similar purpose (e.g. financial data from different ERP systems needed for consolidations).

🧊Data Warehousing: ETL (Part III: The Extract Subprocess)

 

Data Warehousing Series

As part of the ETL process with applicability to Data Warehousing, Data Migrations, Data Integrations or similar scenarios the extraction subprocess is responsible for preparing and implementing the logic required to extract the data from the various source systems at the required level of detail. The extraction is done typically based on SQL queries as long one deals with relational databases or any OLEDB or ODBC-based data repositories including flat or MS Office files.

One can consider the preparation of the extraction logic as separate design subprocess of the targeted solution. Even if high-level design decisions are considered at the respective level, the low-level design needs to be considered at ETL package level. As part of the process are identified the source of the data in terms of system, tables and attributes to be imported, as well the joins, business and transformation rules that need to be applied on the data. This can involve reengineering the logic from the source system(s) as well data profiling, discovery or exploration activities.

A common practice is to copy the source tables 1:1 into the solution, eventually by considering only the needed attributes to minimize the necessary space, loading time and content’s complexity, even if this would add more effort into the design phase to identify only the needed attributes. If further attributes are identified at a later stage, the packages need to be modified accordingly. If the data volume or the number of unnecessary attributes is neglectable, copying the table 1:1 could prove to be the best strategy.

A second approach is to model within the extraction the (business) entity as designed within the source system. For example, the entity could be split over multiple tables from design or other purposes. Thus, the extraction query will attempt modeling the entity. This approach reduces to some degree the number of tables from the targeted solution, as well the number of ETL packages involved, while providing a clear depiction of the entities involved.

A third approach is to extract the data as needed by the target system, eventually as a mix between master and transaction data, fact which could easily lead to data redundancy with different timeliness and all the consequences resulting from this. This approach is usually met in solutions which require fast data availability in the detriment of design.

Unfortunately, there can be design constraints or choice considerations that could lead to a mix between these approaches. If the impact caused by the mix between the first two approaches is minimal, the third approach can cause more challenges, though it might be a small price to pay as long the considered data are disconnected from other data.

To reduce the redundancy of data, it’s recommended to consider as goal creating a unique source of facts, which can be obtained by minimizing as much as possible the overlaps between tables, respectively entities. Ideally there should be no overlaps. On the other sides the overlaps can be acceptable when the same data are available in more systems and the solution requires all the data to be available.

If the above approaches consider the vertical partitioning of the data, there can be also horizontal partitioning needs especially when a subset of the data is needed or when is needed to partition the data based on a set of values. In addition, one might be forced to include also transformation rules directly into the extraction logic, for example to handle conversion issues or minimize certain design overhead early in the process. In practice it makes sense to link such choices to business rules and document them accordingly.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧊☯Data Warehousing: Data Vault 2.0 (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly)

Data Warehousing Series

One of the interesting concepts that seems to gain adepts in Data Warehousing is the Data Vault – a methodology, architecture and implementation for Data Warehouses (DWH) developed by Dan Linstedt between 1990 and 2000, and evolved into an open standard with the 2.0 version.

According to its creator, the Data Vault is a detail-oriented, historical tracking and uniquely linked set of normalized tables that support one or more business functional areas [2]. To hold data at the lowest grain of detail from the source system(s) and track the changes occurred in the data, it splits the fact and dimension tables into hubs (business keys), links (the relationships between business keys), satellites (descriptions of the business keys), and reference (dropdown values) tables [3], while adopting a hybrid approach between 3rd normal form and star schemas. In addition, it provides a two- or three-layered data integration architecture, a series of standards, methods and best practices supposed to facilitate its use.

It integrates several other methodologies that allow bridging the gap between the technical, logistic and execution parts of the DWH life-cycle – the PMI methodology is used for the various levels of planning and execution, while the Scrum methodology is used for coordinating the day-to-day project tasks. Six Sigma is used together with Total Quality Management for the design and continuous improvement of DWH and data-related processes. In addition, it follows the CMMI maturity model for providing a clear baseline for benchmarking an organization’s DWH capabilities in development, acquisition and service areas.

The Good: The decomposition of the source data models into hub, link and satellite tables provides traceability and auditability at raw data level, allowing thus to address the compliance requirements of Sarabanes-Oxley, HIPPA and Basel II by design.

The considered standards, methods, principles and best practices are leveraged from Software Engineering [1], establishing common ground and a standardized approach to DWH design, implementation and testing. It also narrows down the learning and implementation paths, while allowing an incremental approach to the various phases.

Data Vault 2.0 offers support for real-time, near-real-time and unstructured data, while new technologies like MapReduce, NoSQL can be integrated within its architecture, though the same can be said about other approaches as long there’s compatibility between the considered technologies. In fact, except business entities’ decomposition, many of the notions used are common to DWH design.

The Bad: Further decomposing the fact and dimension tables can impact the performance of the queries run against the tables as more joins are required to gather the data from the various tables. The further denormalization of tables can lead to higher data storage needs, though this can be neglectable compared with the volume of additional objects that need to be created in DWH. For an ERP system with a few hundred of meaningful tables the complexity can become overwhelming.

Unless one uses a COTS tool which automates some part of the design and creation process, building everything from scratch can be time-consuming, increasing thus the time-to-market for solutions. However, the COTS tools can introduce restrictions of their own, which can negatively impact the overall experience with the methodology.

The incorporation of non-technical methodologies can have positive impact, though unless one has experience with the respective methodologies, the disadvantages can easily overshadow the (theoretical) advantages.

The Ugly: The dangers of using Data Vault can be corroborated as usual with the poor understanding of the methodology, poor level of skillset or the attempt of implementing the methodology without allowing some flexibility when required. Unless one knows what he is doing, bringing more complexity in a field which is already complex, can easily impact negatively projects’ outcomes.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] Dan Linstedt & Michael Olschimke (2015) Building a Scalable Data Warehouse with Data Vault 2.0
[2] Dan Linstedt (?) Data Vault Basics [source]
[3] Dan Linstedt (2018) Data Vault: Data Modeling Specification v 2.0.2 [source]